Ok, the best Army Builder you have used in the last couple of years, (include any that have been axed by GW):
For Me:
#1. The 40k Army List Builder - The best builder I have ever seen! It had all of the data and none of the hideous look of Battlescribe, (Too bad GW canned it!)
#2. HQ - Solid ease of use with some issues here and there
#3. Battlescribe - solid on the data, but clunky and ugly as hell!
Battlescribe is only "ugly" if you don't bother customising it. It's perfectly fine once you know how to use it mod edit: let's not take swipes at other people when they're not here to defend themselves. motyak
fraser1191 wrote: I'm hoping that the official one will be great. But I'm not gonna hold my breath...
Official one? I didn't know they were planning on releasing their own, I even suggested it in the Community Survey and barring that, a partnership with Battlescribe to at least fix it's problems and make it with official data.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm hoping that the official one will be great. But I'm not gonna hold my breath...
Official one? I didn't know they were planning on releasing their own, I even suggested it in the Community Survey and barring that, a partnership with Battlescribe to at least fix it's problems and make it with official data.
There even is an official one already on the Warhammer Community Page however, it only has powerlevels and no profiles / special rules with it so it's very basic. But they said they'll expand it.
BaconCatBug wrote: Battlescribe is only "ugly" if you don't bother customising it. It's perfectly fine once you know how to use it mod edit: let's not take swipes at other people when they're not here to defend themselves. motyak
as you mention customizing:
is there an easy way to do that? Or some good tutorials?
I'd like to get the whole mileage out of it
BaconCatBug wrote: Battlescribe is only "ugly" if you don't bother customising it. It's perfectly fine once you know how to use it mod edit: let's not take swipes at other people when they're not here to defend themselves. motyak
How do you customize it then? Put on colourful sunglasses ;P
Any UX expert would sign that BattleScribe's UI is terrible to use though. " It's perfectly fine once you know how to use it" is just an euphemism for "terrible UI".
A mine fields is a perfectly fine road if you know where the mines are.
I don't think, that the GUI is that bad.
I'm very comfortable with using it...
So I just tried to customize a roster that was saved as *.html file. Didn't think of that, to be honest.
It's an easy way to reduce the amount of pages that need to be printed.
Just remove three of your four dedicated Transport entrys, add a "three times ***" to the remaining entry and, there you go just saved three pages.
Maybe you can go further, if you add notes an use the fields for exact clarification...
Seems pretty nice. Need to play a bit more with this...
Edit: I fear, that wasn't the kind of customization that was meant...
I like it a lot. It's visually clear what I have on what, everything collapses down neatly if I don't need to look at it; and it's easy to look at for a while since it's black and white.
My only issue is that it's trying to be more helpful than it needs to be since I can calculated my CP without it telling me I forgot to choose detach CP and therefore my roster is incomplete [and the mobile version is obnoxious to set unit loadouts on, but most things mobile suck anyway]
as somebody who does work with making programs easier to use... battle scribe is not great. a UI is lot like a joke. if you have to explain it then it is not very good.
I use it, I understand why it is the way it is, but more uniformity in data loads (user uploaded i know, but setting up standards or reorganizing data seems like it would be ok). The screen to screen for small things liek choosing game, army, detachment should basically be one screen handled with drop downs, then that adds the detachment to another tab to see what has been added... boom simpler, cleaner, faster.
I still use the WolfLair Army Builder too but I wonder how long data file support will continue for that.
Battlescribe is OK, I'm not a huge fan of the printed layout - I would rather it look more like Army Builder's does but it is useful enough to have on PCs where I don't have an Army Builder license.
filbert wrote: I still use the WolfLair Army Builder too but I wonder how long data file support will continue for that.
Battlescribe is OK, I'm not a huge fan of the printed layout - I would rather it look more like Army Builder's does but it is useful enough to have on PCs where I don't have an Army Builder license.
I've just been using it to build lists, then writing the lists out in a format I like better later. For tournaments especially, I'll write out the list like a worksheet, with checkboxes for relic choices and pregame stratagems, since those can change on a game by game basis.
By far the best Army building software I've ever used is: Opening my Codex, using a calculator and having extensive and accurate knowledge of how detachments and unit entry datasheets work, including all up to date FAQs that may affect my Faction
Has never failed me yet. There is just too much content out there now to rely on any third party program that "might" have up-to-date info
Galef wrote: By far the best Army building software I've ever used is:
Opening my Codex, using a calculator and having extensive and accurate knowledge of how detachments and unit entry datasheets work, including all up to date FAQs that may affect my Faction
Has never failed me yet.
There is just too much content out there now to rely on any third party program that "might" have up-to-date info
-
I trust Battlescribe to be more accurate than I would be with paper and pencil.
I trust Battlescribe to be more accurate than I would be with paper and pencil.
Indeed. It also fits on my mobile devices and has a save feature. Plus handwriting I can actually read.
All fair points. And is the beauty of this topic. No one is forced to use any particular method.
I just don't want to really on a program that has to constantly be updated and can have some...lag...when new rule come out and the programmers have to update it. I also do not hand write my lists, but type them in Word, so readability is not an issue. And I find formatting the list in Word much easy than messing with Battlescribe. Just my personal preference informed by over a decade of list building.
I'm sure the tech has improved since I last tried it several years ago, but since my method works for me, I have zero reason to alter it. As long as I am up to date with my faction's rules and FAQs, there is little room for error.
torblind wrote: ... And it has the current point costs of my units and upgrades after numerous FAQs and erratas.
They do now, but if the Big FAQ drops say...today... and has some points adjustments, how soon would Battlescribe be updated? I'd be impressed if it was instantly, because that's how fast "my" method updates.
And just to be clear on where my bias comes from, in addition to beind resistance to new tech, I have actually called out a player that was using Battle Scribe to make their list and is hadn't updated with a change (can't remember the specifics as this was a few years ago), but he was playing with over 100pts more than what was legal because BS had not updated with a recent Codex released a few days prior. Being "cheated" like that left a bad taste in my mouth for Battlescribe
torblind wrote: ... And it has the current point costs of my units and upgrades after numerous FAQs and erratas.
They do now, but if the Big FAQ drops say...today... and has some points adjustments, how soon would Battlescribe be updated? I'd be impressed if it was instantly, because that's how fast "my" method updates.
If an FAQ drops today that makes my Dire Avenger Exarchs +10ppm upgrades, then it's on me to build a 1970 point list in BattleScribe, knowing that I'm also paying for 3 upgrades that are not there.
I'll sometimes do two seperate lists in BattleScribe if my, say, Harlies are helping out Asurman And Company.
It's on the player to ensure they are not over on points. For pugs, "Battlescribe says this" is good enough, most of the time. But in the corner cases (known issue on points, FAQ just changed them, or whatever), even in a PuG, the player is responsible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More generally, I trust BattleScribe not to make a mistake more readily than the average player.
But I don't doublecheck either (outside I think two extreme exceptions in my entire history with this game). If I can't trust the other guy to follow the rules in his list, I don't think I'm going to enjoy a game against him.
Being "cheated" like that left a bad taste in my mouth for Battlescribe
-
That had everything to do with the player misusing a tool, not the tool itself. If you play an army, its a pretty safe bet you're gonna know when the codex drops. Which then puts the onus on you to confirm that your list is legal.
This is why you check the release and version notes, and have a conversation with your match companion about any possibility of discrepancies.
TL;DR - Use your tools responsibly and you'll be fine.
Being "cheated" like that left a bad taste in my mouth for Battlescribe
-
That had everything to do with the player misusing a tool, not the tool itself. If you play an army, its a pretty safe bet you're gonna know when the codex drops. Which then puts the onus on you to confirm that your list is legal.
This is why you check the release and version notes, and have a conversation with your match companion about any possibility of discrepancies.
TL;DR - Use your tools responsibly and you'll be fine.
I think I've actually seen this scenario more with those who don't use BS (or another app) than without; they weren't cheating, they just hadn't rebuilt their list using the new codex. As long as they weren't using any rules from the new codex, that's just an outdated army - I'd rather play a game and have them learn the new codex later than sit around while they learn the new codex.
Some people (not me) build their lists long before games - possibly even more than 3 days before the game. Some people even consider it cheating to not have built your list before you show up.
You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
What if I happen to know that Bob wants to see if he can handle the worst my codex can throw at him, Sam just wants to throw dice and not have it be a route in either direction, and George doesn't really care as long as theres sum krumpin ta be had?
List tailoring for tactical advantage is bad. But there are times your list might vary based on who your playing for reasons other than maximizing the odds that you're going to win.
And that's before we even start talking about narrative.
If I show up, and there's a Tyranid player and two Marine players, and we want to do a 2v2, I'm certainly going to list tailor; only one of my Farseers and none of my Phoenix Lords would ever work with the Tyranids directly, but the Cult of Lokus (long homebrew fluff explaination) does so readily! So I'm certainly going to throw together a list that only includes those who would follow Lokus in his schemes.
I don't really know, for sure, if it's going to be a 2k game, 1500 game, 1250, allies, or what game. I don't know if I'm going up against someone who's sick of Harlequins. Or just scared of Reapers. There are far too many permutations of what I might play to build a list for each. And, even if that were possible, selecting a list from such a wide selection introduces the same concern.
TLDR: that's how you play, and probably fits what you're looking for in this game. It's not how I play, and would detract from what I'm looking for in this game.
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
yea... it does suck to show up to play a game and then somebody want to play, you start pulling out models for your take all comers and they start building thier list seeing what you are unpacking >_< there is one player here who is notorious for that, if I unpack my horde orks suddenly he has flamers all over the place. if i bring my mechanical orks... battlecannons and lascannons for days with coincidently zero flamers.
Resorting? Seems like a logical default to me. You are stuck with one list at any event, after all. If i had multiple factions, i wouldnt tell my opponent which one it was beforehand.
Seems like a logical construct to maximize competition.
You are stuck with one list at any event, after all.
If you only play PUGs to get better for Events, then that makes sense. If you play PUGs entirely for other reasons, it doesn't really matter.
If i had multiple factions, i wouldnt tell my opponent which one it was beforehand.
It's a lot harder to set up a narrative if you don't know what you're up against. While some stories can begin with going in blind, when every story does, it's cliche/bland.
TLDR: sounds like a sane and logical (and good) system where all players are focusing on being as competitive as possible. But sounds like gak for me. No huge surprise - there are a lot of different reasons why different people play this game.
Just Tony wrote:Am I the only person left on the planet that uses a codex, tablet, and only occasionally a calculator?
Probably. Tablets suck, the mud dries out too quickly, and the stylus is always spreading it everywhere, and they're so heavy to carry. Upgrade to papyrus paper, like the rest of the modern world.
G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
yea... it does suck to show up to play a game and then somebody want to play, you start pulling out models for your take all comers and they start building thier list seeing what you are unpacking >_< there is one player here who is notorious for that, if I unpack my horde orks suddenly he has flamers all over the place. if i bring my mechanical orks... battlecannons and lascannons for days with coincidently zero flamers.
In my home group, we always tailored to each other. I don't understand this aversion to it. We knew what each other played, and how we played them, and built our lists around what we knew that person had available and usually brought, and what we expected them to bring. I think an important part of list building and the strategy thereof is predicting what your opponent is going to bring to the table, how they're going to fight, and how you're going to make sure that fails.
I think a small amount of tailoring is alright. For example, if my all comers list has some anti-psyker but I'm playing Tau, then it makes perfect sense to tweak it and use those points elsewhere.
But I completely agree that writing your entire list based on what your opponent is taking is not cool and I wouldn't play you if you tried it with me.
Your imagination, the tabletop, then something to add up the points. If you get in a rut like I did, the community.
For tournament builds I mean, there's always research. Somebody somewhere has science'd the heresy out of optimal builds for just about every standard point value. Start there, think it over, understand the tactics of that army comp. Play around with battlescribe and crunch numbers. Add your own twist to it.
All said., it's down to the dice and no app can account for that.
Rather be lucky than good
Just Tony wrote: Am I the only person left on the planet that uses a codex, tablet, and only occasionally a calculator?
Possibly. In the age of apps you may be alone. But wait the guys from oumuamua might be with you.
Well, I'm using only battlescribe and have not used any other builder.
It works for me especially when I use it at the pc because then you can seem all options at a glimpse.
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. List tailoring is complete BS.
I use BattleScribe but I agree, don't list tailor when you see your opponent's army. Having said that, with friends we usually discuss the sort of things we'll bring in advance then share BattleScribe lists beforehand.
Similarly, also bring your codex in case there are rules that need checking during the game. I trust my opponents but I don't know all their rules. When something game changing is dropped out of the blue it's just courteous to read out the exact wording if your opponent wasn't aware it even existed. The fluff around new rules can also be good to read out for effect. People also make mistakes too, and finding out you lost a game because your opponent was getting their rules wrong (and you thought it seemed totally OP but there was no way to check) is frustrating to say the least.
I use Battlescribe but do miss WL army builder.
I think I still have print outs of lists I built with it waaaay back when. It had a nice little UI on it with good options.
Having said that BS is functional and seems to always be updated which is cool.
Just Tony wrote: Am I the only person left on the planet that uses a codex, tablet, and only occasionally a calculator?
I use both pen/paper/calculator and BattleScribe. One thing I noticed when I started using BS is I ended up with no idea what stuff actually cost. I think it's the disconnect between entering the units but not points cost that does it, but it meant it was a lot harder to alter lists in my head. Also, the BS UI is an affront to humanity and I think it actually takes longer to build an army like Deathwatch or Blood Angels using BS than it does using pen and paper because you have so many units that have options on each individual model.
I tend to use spreadsheets/word/pen&paper to work out my lists, then once I am fairly sure about it I will create it in Battlescribe which allows me to share the list with my opponent easily etc.
Therefore allowing me to double check/confirm that I have worked out the points etc. correctly.
p.s. If you use Battlescribe, and you wish to include an assassin and therefore require 85 reinforcement points etc. what is the best way to show that on Battlescribe? - nevermind, the latest BS update included an option for this.
Just Tony wrote:Am I the only person left on the planet that uses a codex, tablet, and only occasionally a calculator?
Probably. Tablets suck, the mud dries out too quickly, and the stylus is always spreading it everywhere, and they're so heavy to carry. Upgrade to papyrus paper, like the rest of the modern world.
G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
yea... it does suck to show up to play a game and then somebody want to play, you start pulling out models for your take all comers and they start building thier list seeing what you are unpacking >_< there is one player here who is notorious for that, if I unpack my horde orks suddenly he has flamers all over the place. if i bring my mechanical orks... battlecannons and lascannons for days with coincidently zero flamers.
In my home group, we always tailored to each other. I don't understand this aversion to it. We knew what each other played, and how we played them, and built our lists around what we knew that person had available and usually brought, and what we expected them to bring. I think an important part of list building and the strategy thereof is predicting what your opponent is going to bring to the table, how they're going to fight, and how you're going to make sure that fails.
If both parties go into the game with that sure, might even add some fun for some people( though requires knowing your opponent before hand which often we randomize). but when you literally wait to start list building until the opponent is unpacking their models (who is using a take all comers list) and you watch what comes out and adjust your list accordingly? I mean most of us use the same list we would have used vs imperial knights or horde tyranids.
Considering you don't always know what kind of game your playing theres no point in writing out a physical list copy.
I don't always know if im doing a 1500/2000 point game. Or if its gonna be a team game or a 3 player free for all. I just use battlescribe and make a list after we decide what kind of game we are playing. I don't even ask what my opponent is using.
If you pre-arrange your games with someone, sure go ahead, but generally since its just a friendly game with nothing at stake I don't care if my opponent tailors againgst me. Why would I?
Im not loosing anything by loosing or winning anything by winning. Im just going to play.
Its actually kind of fun to see someone come with a list tailored againgst you since you can see how good you really are.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm hoping that the official one will be great. But I'm not gonna hold my breath...
Official one? I didn't know they were planning on releasing their own, I even suggested it in the Community Survey and barring that, a partnership with Battlescribe to at least fix it's problems and make it with official data.
There even is an official one already on the Warhammer Community Page however, it only has powerlevels and no profiles / special rules with it so it's very basic. But they said they'll expand it.
Oh! I know exactly what you're talking about now, I have used it before but it gives nothing more than powerlevel, as you said so I didn't find it very useful. I do like how the UI is easy to use and a drop down type menu, I do hope they expand it and make it a tool worth using.
filbert wrote: I still use the WolfLair Army Builder too but I wonder how long data file support will continue for that.
Battlescribe is OK, I'm not a huge fan of the printed layout - I would rather it look more like Army Builder's does but it is useful enough to have on PCs where I don't have an Army Builder license.
I've just been using it to build lists, then writing the lists out in a format I like better later. For tournaments especially, I'll write out the list like a worksheet, with checkboxes for relic choices and pregame stratagems, since those can change on a game by game basis.
Do you have an example of how you write your revamped lists out by chance? I'm curious to see how you do it is all.
I used to use Army Builder, but their subscription model seriously ticked me off. These days, I use BattleScribe, and while the UI is pretty poor, it hasn’t let me down yet.
Personally, I can’t imagine trying to do pre-8E rosters by hand, and have had enough bad experience with people getting things wrong I wouldn’t trust them if they did.
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
yea... it does suck to show up to play a game and then somebody want to play, you start pulling out models for your take all comers and they start building thier list seeing what you are unpacking >_< there is one player here who is notorious for that, if I unpack my horde orks suddenly he has flamers all over the place. if i bring my mechanical orks... battlecannons and lascannons for days with coincidently zero flamers.
So you start unpacking your horde orks, wait until he's putting his flamers on the table, then start unpacking your mechanical orks into the actual play area. If he complains tell him your horde orks were in the way. If he starts swapping his flamers for lascannons, say "oh wait, that's not even the list I wanted to play" and then start swapping in the horde orks. Repeat until he storms out of the gaming area. Bonus points if he doesn't come back for a couple of weeks.
filbert wrote: I still use the WolfLair Army Builder too but I wonder how long data file support will continue for that.
Battlescribe is OK, I'm not a huge fan of the printed layout - I would rather it look more like Army Builder's does but it is useful enough to have on PCs where I don't have an Army Builder license.
I've just been using it to build lists, then writing the lists out in a format I like better later. For tournaments especially, I'll write out the list like a worksheet, with checkboxes for relic choices and pregame stratagems, since those can change on a game by game basis.
Do you have an example of how you write your revamped lists out by chance? I'm curious to see how you do it is all.
Sure. This is a list I took to a tournament yesterday. I generally always used the 3 traits option for the Knights, and usually used the same ones, but I just fill out the sheet and hand it to my opponent before the game starts so he knows what I have.
FWIW, while it obviously isn't either an automatic or instant update, with a spreadsheet you can easily set it up so that you change a single (points) value on one master sheet and have that value update across all your list sheets.
It's effort, but not very much, and even if it was more effort I'd still use the spreadsheet method 'cause it allows me to track and stay on top of so many other things than just points, too.
filbert wrote: I still use the WolfLair Army Builder too but I wonder how long data file support will continue for that.
Battlescribe is OK, I'm not a huge fan of the printed layout - I would rather it look more like Army Builder's does but it is useful enough to have on PCs where I don't have an Army Builder license.
I've just been using it to build lists, then writing the lists out in a format I like better later. For tournaments especially, I'll write out the list like a worksheet, with checkboxes for relic choices and pregame stratagems, since those can change on a game by game basis.
Do you have an example of how you write your revamped lists out by chance? I'm curious to see how you do it is all.
Sure. This is a list I took to a tournament yesterday. I generally always used the 3 traits option for the Knights, and usually used the same ones, but I just fill out the sheet and hand it to my opponent before the game starts so he knows what I have.
I like the way that looks and how easy it is to tell what you have overall and putting in different loadouts for units wouldn't take to much extra effort either. Thanks, I downloaded it to see how I would like using it myself in the future!
If datacards went back to having point values I would use notepad & Pen as thats actualy quite enjoyable. Going between 3 books comparing diferent unit costs and then checking gear costs is not...
I was always old fashioned pen and paper kind of guy. But as my army is split across an index, codex and CA2018 it makes sense to battlescribe. Have a home made excel for backup check.
Battle scribe is actualy really nice on mobile. Easy to share, exoirt to text. Not a fan of the desktop version but if you sync with drop box you can cross platform.
Just Tony wrote:Am I the only person left on the planet that uses a codex, tablet, and only occasionally a calculator?
Probably. Tablets suck, the mud dries out too quickly, and the stylus is always spreading it everywhere, and they're so heavy to carry. Upgrade to papyrus paper, like the rest of the modern world.
G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote: You should have your list before you show up or even know your opponent. Or, have a number of lists and randomly select them. That's what I do a lot. List tailoring is complete BS.
yea... it does suck to show up to play a game and then somebody want to play, you start pulling out models for your take all comers and they start building thier list seeing what you are unpacking >_< there is one player here who is notorious for that, if I unpack my horde orks suddenly he has flamers all over the place. if i bring my mechanical orks... battlecannons and lascannons for days with coincidently zero flamers.
In my home group, we always tailored to each other. I don't understand this aversion to it. We knew what each other played, and how we played them, and built our lists around what we knew that person had available and usually brought, and what we expected them to bring. I think an important part of list building and the strategy thereof is predicting what your opponent is going to bring to the table, how they're going to fight, and how you're going to make sure that fails.
We consider list tailoring cheating. Or damn close to it.
Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
There are two problems with list tailoring:
- Some armies can't do it as well as others
- Not everyone owns all the models to list tailor
Of course, the person tailoring can claim to not be doing it or insist that its ok to list tailor, but this will backfire eventually if people are not ok with it.
The guy who always list tailored in our gaming group (among other grey area practices) has recently found himself fresh out of opponents. Including me, there are only two people left willing to play him, out of a group of more than 10 people who play regularly at our club. And yes, he has been talked to about these problems.
If you aren't making sure that your opponents are having fun as well, you will end up not playing against them anymore.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
depends on the club's rules/event rules and to an extent social contract.
If your group flgs league etc has no rules against it... sure. but if you are in a league and it allows for changing lists between games btu that lists must be set before you know the army you are facing then it is cheating.
In my case it is mostly social contract, in our club there is an agreement that we bring take all comers lists and have them ready before the game. The opponent in question never has the "right points" for the 2k games that are always played and had to "add a few points" which always mean he has full las cannons vs mechanized forces and anti horde vs horde.
my answer is I bring 3 lists at every points level (digital) a casual, a mixed, and a d#)k stomping top tier tournament list. guess which one he always gets (when he is the last person available to play a game, which means i got to game night late if i am t a table with him)
Well, a builder shows you all options at a glance and also takes into account the index.
And?
I'm sure people can turn off their call of battlefield games and spend 30 minutes writing a list.
I'm still amazed by the human brain.....
At three different game stores having tournaments in my area, OVER 60% of the hand made army lists had errors from people like you....and all of them thought they were super duper smart.
I also don't understand how so many of the "Paper, Pencil, Calculator" people think that reading over your codex and writing it down has anything to do with the building portion that App users are interested in. I use my free time to build 6 or 7 different list styles at different point levels in 30 minutes. Then I look at what I have created and build a final list that meets what I want to play.
I have done the PPC method a lot......when I had nothing better to use. Excel sheets are great, but suffer from a maintenance level that Army Builder Apps do not.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
Well i wouldn't play vs a foe who was able to tailor. How much strategy is there in spamming plasma vs marines? feth that.
Its cheating just like misquoting rules or altering measuring.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
So "cheating" may be the wrong word, but "unfair" would certainly fit. Imagine you roll up with an all-tank army and "allow" your opponent to quickly tailor their list to be better "prepared" for the game. So they drop all Heavy Bolters for Meltas and Lascannons. That's not going to be a fun game for you as your opponent just removes tank after tank.
And where do you draw the line? When do you stop tailoring and counter tailoring? Use the above example, in which you present an all-tank list for your opponent to tailor against. Now that they have done so and presented their list, what stops you from just saying "JK, my army is all Infantry now, let's play" and you pull out a list of all Infantry that you already had prepared.
This is the issue with list tailoring and why it is so unfair that it may as well be cheating. The best approach is to have a few all comers lists available, rather than list tailor once you see the opponent's list. Now, if an all Knight player wants to be gracious and give you the opportunity to make changes just to be able to compete, that's their choice. But they don't then get to say, "Oh and by the way, now that you've ditched all you anti-infantry, I forgot to mention, I have the loyal 32 in the list too."
Well, a builder shows you all options at a glance and also takes into account the index.
And?
I'm sure people can turn off their call of battlefield games and spend 30 minutes writing a list.
I'm still amazed by the human brain.....
At three different game stores having tournaments in my area, OVER 60% of the hand made army lists had errors from people like you....and all of them thought they were super duper smart.
I also don't understand how so many of the "Paper, Pencil, Calculator" people think that reading over your codex and writing it down has anything to do with the building portion that App users are interested in. I use my free time to build 6 or 7 different list styles at different point levels in 30 minutes. Then I look at what I have created and build a final list that meets what I want to play.
I have done the PPC method a lot......when I had nothing better to use. Excel sheets are great, but suffer from a maintenance level that Army Builder Apps do not.
Yeah I don't see why you would want to burden yourself with all the extra hazzles involved in paperworking the lists when battlescribe does all that for you? I mean double check the numbers first time and if they're fine you know they're fine next time or something.
I love laying down if I have ten minutes off, and churn out a few lists based on some idea. No way that's working if I have to do it by hand.
The effort involved in maintaining a spreadsheet is being greatly overstated, IMO. Slaanesh Daemons got massive points cuts in CA:2018, it still only took me four or five minutes to update all six of extant lists, 'cause I only had to change the numbers on my master sheet and OpenCalc did the rest. Granted, that's more effort than 'none', but it still isn't very much effort at all.
And again, it allows you to track other stuff than just points. I can see at a glance what in my collection needs to be bought, what needs to be built, what needs to be painted and what's finished. I know what bitz I have and how many I have of each. I know how many of my Daemonettes have purple hair (63, or 66%). I know how many (fake) people there are living in each (fake) city on my (fake) planet, Kronstaat IV, and how many of them are conscripted into the Defence Force. I have a list of names I've used and names I'm going to use. I have an ideas list, a to-do list and a shopping list. I know exactly, to the cent, how much it will cost to build up to 12.5k points at current prices.
I can even tell you how many square inches of space I need to display my current collection. It's 380.
Your level of anal retentiveness may, of course, differ.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
So "cheating" may be the wrong word, but "unfair" would certainly fit.
Imagine you roll up with an all-tank army and "allow" your opponent to quickly tailor their list to be better "prepared" for the game.
So they drop all Heavy Bolters for Meltas and Lascannons. That's not going to be a fun game for you as your opponent just removes tank after tank.
And where do you draw the line? When do you stop tailoring and counter tailoring?
Use the above example, in which you present an all-tank list for your opponent to tailor against.
Now that they have done so and presented their list, what stops you from just saying "JK, my army is all Infantry now, let's play" and you pull out a list of all Infantry that you already had prepared.
This is the issue with list tailoring and why it is so unfair that it may as well be cheating. The best approach is to have a few all comers lists available, rather than list tailor once you see the opponent's list.
Now, if an all Knight player wants to be gracious and give you the opportunity to make changes just to be able to compete, that's their choice. But they don't then get to say, "Oh and by the way, now that you've ditched all you anti-infantry, I forgot to mention, I have the loyal 32 in the list too."
-
If the rules of the meta (codified or otherwise) are "No list tailoring", then list tailoring is cheating in that meta.
If the rules of the meta are "Lists must be written before showing up", and I join that meta, once I "read" those rules, my options are:
1) Find another meta (or convince people to play otherwise)
2) Write my lists before showing up
3) Cheat
By not writing my lists before showing up, when that's the rule, I'm cheating just as much as the guy who rerolls all misses when he's only allowed to reroll ones.
Now, I can say "I didn't write my list beforehand, anyone want to play that way?", and if anyone takes me up on it, it's not cheating (see option #1), but that's quite different.
It's nothing personal, but we're a disparate group in location and playstyles so there has to be a grundnorm to work from. That grundnorm must necessarily be the RAW, IMO.
Otherwise every answer is just "it's legal in X meta".
One option is to define the universal "what is legal" to be RAW from what GW has released.
Another option is to accept that there is no universal "what is legal", and accept that it *will* vary from meta to meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In this particular case, RAW doesn't require rules to be written before you show up, and opponents to be randomly selected. But it was interesting and enlightening when people shared that about their meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, in case there was confusion, I'm not talking about "list tailoring" specifically. I agree that "list tailoring" for competitive advantage is not acceptable. Note that my reasons for why my list isn't written yet are not about that.)
The second option makes discussion so wide as to be meaningless. It doesn't need to be stated that there's X meta somewhere that tolerates Y; it's taken as read.
You need a concrete starting point. That point is the RAW. IMO. Pontificating and prevaricating on what some metas may allow is just noise.
I know that all sounds horribly impolite, but it isn't meant to be taken personally.
It wasn't taken as impolite; we're disagreeing, civilly, about the ideal form of discussion.
There's another thread that's going deep down the RAI vs RAW vs HIWPI right now, so we probably don't need to go too deep down this road.
This "list tailoring" discussion came up due to a claim that the one true reasonable way to play was to have a single list before you show up, and randomly select who you play; in that regard, I find it important to remember that different metas are diffferent (while it may seem obvious, it appeared to be missed by the discussion at that point), and that it's reasonable for a meta to not follow that yet still not have a list-tailoring problem.
That whole subtopic was entirely predicated on variance between metas, but I don't believe that subtopic has been a waste of time; I found it interesting and insightful.
As we all live in different metas, I find discussing the differences helpful. As was shown, the answer to the OPs question can vary based on other factors of the local meta.
There's nothing in RAW about sharing my list with you before we play. There's nothing about even knowing your opponent's faction, even. At least, not to my knowledge.
Regardless, I'm not showing anyone my list, even before a narrative game. The temptation is too great for most.
I started off with all my lists on "Army Builder" and found it reasonable to use.
Battlescribe took a little bit to figure out, I did look into the structure a bit and can understand why they do what they do but it can be a bit odd at times.
It works well when mixing the various detachments.
I agree that if you are good with a spreadsheet, these army builder programs have little extra to offer.
I do find after getting a few tables of information together it is much easier to figure things out: the bits and pieces of information everywhere is a bit irritating.
I found a notes field is invaluable for listing the sources and their updates as rule/weapon/unit gets updated.
I have found the only problem is you can fuss with the darn thing forever with so many options to play with.
Really need some form of OCR for entering the wall of text for anything and everything.
I feel that a list needs to be selected before anyone lays eyes on what the other guy has.
I have too often seen people wait before producing a list hoping I would unpack my army first.
I have begun to lose a fair bit of trust with some people out there.
Unfortunately agreed. I tend not to share my list until I am deploying, at which point I give my opponent a summary of what each unit can do. Although, this has more to do with the fact that most players have wild misconceptions about what Eldar units can do, so I'm just in the habit of trying to clear that up early in the game.
In practice, all my opponents and I share before hand is what Factions we have. There is enough diversity in most armies, that this isn't always a dead give-away as to what you are bringing.
In fact, I've used people's assumptions against them in the past. In 7E, people always assumed I'd be taking Scatterbike and WKs, which granted I did for tourneys, but in casual games, I "toned it down" by taking Shuricannon bikes instead, dropping some bikes and adding Grey Knights (of all things) or Dark Eldar (which were not as amazaballs as they are now).
But taking units that we unexpected, I often could catch players off guard and still "win" even with sub-par choices mixed in.
This is why, when I build my list, I do my best to not see what the other guy is unpacking/building their list. i'll go around a corner or something, if necessary.
i only play in tournaments or pre arranged games so we always know our opponent and the points we are gonna play, so we go with the lists done from home.
The more competitive we want the game to be, the less we'll tell the other about what we are bringing (Unless we are preparing for a big tournament and we want to try stuff agaisnt the meta lists, of course)
To make it, output the list as HTML. Then edit the HTML using notepad or similar (I use notepad++, which is free).
When editing I remove all the content between the <head>...</head> tags and replace it with the following code:
I also remove a class for some para tags at the Force Org section to enable printing to use less paper, but if you're not planning on that then there's no issue.
This modified html file goes in a folder with a css file I downloaded from github called Gizmoscribe. I've modified it slightly to give the Space Marines logo in the top corner, but otherwise it's identical.
These can then be uploaded via FTP for use on a tablet/phone or opened locally in a browser for printing.
I think a lot more can be done with the .ros outputs from BattleScribe since it's basically XML, but I need to learn some XSLT first...
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
Well i wouldn't play vs a foe who was able to tailor. How much strategy is there in spamming plasma vs marines? feth that.
Its cheating just like misquoting rules or altering measuring.
Then we would never play. I would not turn a game away even if someone put every speck of thought in taking on my specific codex. I look at it as a challenge. Different strokes, I guess. STILL not cheating.
Just Tony wrote: Also, to chime in on the list tailoring debate: real world militaries do it ALL THE TIME!!!! You wouldn't roll a tank hunter battalion in when you're facing masses of light infantry. Intel is collected and the proper forces are thrown at the problem. If we can pull that off currently, there shouldn't be ANY problem pulling that off 40,000 ish years from now.
That's great. But in a game, it's still cheating.
Miscalculating points for an advantage is cheating.
Playing with loaded dice is cheating.
"Conveniently" misremembering which unit was in which transport until it's revealed that the PERFECT unit for the job just happened to be in the right place is cheating.
Altering measuring to gain an advantage is cheating.
Tailoring your forces to deal appropriately with a foe would fall under strategy, tactics, or possibly both. Not cheating.
So "cheating" may be the wrong word, but "unfair" would certainly fit.
Imagine you roll up with an all-tank army and "allow" your opponent to quickly tailor their list to be better "prepared" for the game.
So they drop all Heavy Bolters for Meltas and Lascannons. That's not going to be a fun game for you as your opponent just removes tank after tank.
And where do you draw the line? When do you stop tailoring and counter tailoring?
Use the above example, in which you present an all-tank list for your opponent to tailor against.
Now that they have done so and presented their list, what stops you from just saying "JK, my army is all Infantry now, let's play" and you pull out a list of all Infantry that you already had prepared.
This is the issue with list tailoring and why it is so unfair that it may as well be cheating. The best approach is to have a few all comers lists available, rather than list tailor once you see the opponent's list.
Now, if an all Knight player wants to be gracious and give you the opportunity to make changes just to be able to compete, that's their choice. But they don't then get to say, "Oh and by the way, now that you've ditched all you anti-infantry, I forgot to mention, I have the loyal 32 in the list too."
-
One assumes that showing up to a random store would necessitate an all comers list. That's a given. Knowing your opponents, however, and being a regular changes that paradigm slightly. Granted, certain clubs may prohibit anything remotely competitive or logical when it comes to a freaking war game, and that should be considered of course. But saying ALL list tailoring is cheating is patently false.
In your above example, my brother alluded to running a Slannless Lizardmen army in one of our upcoming games. I built my list magic light because of it, and was woefully unprepared to stop the spells coming from his army. I outnumbered him grossly with High Elves, so I was still on an even keel, mainly because the balance is done with points. Modern 40K is less forgiving, but as I only play 3rd Ed. nowadays it's hardly a concern.
Back to army building programs, an old gaming acquaintance of mine regaled me with discovering that you could assign a Sgt. Lysander to every squad in an Imperial Fists army within Army Builder. That right there killed any trust I had as to the infallibility of army building programs, and why I stick with analog with a quick math check by a third party.
For each of my armies I simply compile a couple double-sided, colour-coded, laminated cheat sheets. The sheets generally include:
1) Unit profiles and special rules (including unit costs)
2) Weapon profiles (including costs)
3) Legion/Chapter traits
4) Warlord traits
5) Special army rules (such as daemonic summoning, etc.)
6) Stratagems
etc.
Each sheet has a date on it, including what publications have been taken into account. I update this 3-4 times a year as needed and print off a new set for each army. Took me a couple of hours to input the information originally but it's easy to update and change as rules/FAQ/s and Chapter Approved books come out.
Notable changes are highlighted with the corresponding publication/PDF that changed it so I can reference it as needed. I bring my codices to the game as well, but use these 99% of the time. I tailor the sheets to units that I own, and stratagems I use etc. (so extraneous information isn't included for units I don't own, weapons I don't use, or stratagems which don't apply to my army). They are essentially an entire codex boiled down into two or three double-sided sheets (and mine include Forgeworld units, weapons, etc. as well)
As far as building the actual army lists I also have a pre-typed list of units I commonly run (including cost, wargear, etc.). I generally play with the same units with the same equipment so I can bulk out an army in a moment or two and then spend a few minutes finding out how to add/subtract a model or two to fit the game limit.
In my Opinion the biggest advantage of my opponent using battlescribe or similar is that I know that they didn't feth up their army selection by missing some mandatory selections (3x FA for brigade), added up points wrong or missed mandatory wargear that costs points. They also don't forget to select their psychic powers and warlord traits and they didn't use some datasheet from the index which they are no longer allowed to use.
When someone is using pen&pencil to write their list, checking their list for errors is pretty much mandatory as people get too much wrong. In a time where everyone can have an army building tool installed on their calculator (= mobile phone) I see no reason to rely on such an error-prone method.
As for the list tailoring... I usually build three lists before going to a game when I decide to go play somewhere, one for 1500 (2v2), one for 2000 (1v1) and one for 3000 (1v2). Every list is prepared to tackle anything any of my opponents could bring.
RE: Tailoring. It's not cheating, full stop. It's a jerk move to do unless it's agreed upon (some groups enjoy trying to "one-up" each other), but it's not at all "cheating".
Wayniac wrote: RE: Tailoring. It's not cheating, full stop. It's a jerk move to do unless it's agreed upon (some groups enjoy trying to "one-up" each other), but it's not at all "cheating".
Depends on one fact and one fact only:
Did you view what your opponent was about to play for that session and picked a tailored accordingly?
Or did you bring a list based on a best "guess" of what you think your opponent will bring (like he does not change his list)?
Didn't previous editions have an explicit instruction that part of writing an army roster was exchanging what factions you were playing before writing the list? Granted this was in the saner times of a single FoC and not EveryoneSoup.
Wayniac wrote: RE: Tailoring. It's not cheating, full stop. It's a jerk move to do unless it's agreed upon (some groups enjoy trying to "one-up" each other), but it's not at all "cheating".
for a pickup game with no predetermined rules and just throwing down dice not cheating. In league games where said rules include taking the same list and/or predetermined lists before the match then it is. Even in tournaments I can say I have had to call a lot of people out on swapping models that do not match the list. like space marine sargents who on thier official printed out lists have combi plasma, but since I am playing orks they are suddenly combi flamers and "oops i forgot to update my tournament list but see on my phone in battlescribe it says flamers" or suddenly thier army builder list has a sarg with a plasma pistol that is not on their submitted list and a piece of wargear is no longer on a vehicle. for me its an easy solution if this is a tournament and your list says this is your equipment then its what was on the list you submitted, lets call over a judge to have you DQ'd for cheating or you can use what is on this list i am holding.
Sounds like you are talking about a bunch of different things.
If I play a tournament I have a presubmitted list I play. What's there to discuss about that?
If I play a casual game against my AM friend I pay special attention to my anti tank elements. If I play my tyrannid friend I make sure to have some Tesla immortals for his genestealers, though I have no clue of he's actually taking them. Is that tailoring? Don't know. It certainly isn't cheating.
If I go to a gaming club I pack a reasonable list and bring the models. Depending on how things turn out, if I meet someone new who wants to play I ask what kind of game he wants I guess. And of it's something my necrons are I'll prepared I tell him I'd like to make some adjustments as my necrons would otherwise struggle against his Dark Eldars. Or something along those lines.
Under no circumstances would I wait to see someone's list and then pull something out of the hat to counter that. Except if there's some sort of agreement on that. Perhaps he dares me to beat his list?
Martel732 wrote: It can easily have a greater effect than other forms of cheating. Its cheating.
you can't say that because it has a greater effect, its cheating. cheating is by definition doing something against the rules. as other have said, its unfair, but not cheating.
Personnally i find that theres different levels of tailoring.
basic level : No tailoring, we both build TAC lists, this is fine
Level 1 : i know before the match that i'll be playing against drukhari. I play admech and put some icarus arrays on my crawlers before showing up to the store for the game (this is fine by me, most people i play with do things like this, it encourages players in building smart lists).
Level 2 : I know before the match that i'll be playing against a drukhari list with lots of footsoldiers since thats what the guy im playing against usually brings. I put kastellan robots in my list so i can shred them quickly (This is borderline, but still acceptable if both sides communicate beforehand so they can both tailor. I would keep this level for narrative games since it requires listbuilding on both sides of the table for a story based game).
Level 3 : I dont know my opponent's army but when i show up to the store and see that hes playing tank heavy, i load up on neutron lasers and lascannon (this is still not cheating, its just being That guy and i personally wouldnt play against a 2nd time against someone that does that, i expect lists to be built before showing up for the game)
Level 4 : I get to the store and i measuring and sewing my opponent's clothing
basically the game is a social contract, both players should communicate on what they want. do you want a blind game? a narrative game where a defender wants to be on the edge of death, facing an unstoppable enemy while waiting for reinforcements.
If youre in a tournament, lists should be given in at the start, with no option to change them, since this is an actual rule, changing the list would be cheating
basically the game is a social contract, both players should communicate on what they want. do you want a blind game? a narrative game where a defender wants to be on the edge of death, facing an unstoppable enemy while waiting for reinforcements.
If youre in a tournament, lists should be given in at the start, with no option to change them, since this is an actual rule, changing the list would be cheating
Yup. I'll often tell people exactly what I"m bringing, and that I'm bringing a tournament list, and that I want them to build their list to counter mine. I'd like to see what a "worst case" scenario is like, so I know how to deal with it if it ever comes up in a tournament. I encourage list tailoring against myself whenever possible.
I played a WHFB match once where I "list tailored" right as we deployed.
I was playing HE, and had no idea what army I was going to face. I had a Lvl4 Archmage of Metal with the book. He shows up, we start talking deployment, and he's Warriors of Chaos - with mostly Warriors. Lvl4 Archmage of Metal would melt his army like candle wax.
I asked him if it was OK if I "list tailored" in a different mage (Heavens, I think I went with) so we could have a more fun game.
Turned into a fun, balanced game - but only because I tailored.
I used to do my Battletech sheets in notepad, using advanced ASCII characters to make borders and boxes. I don’t think these days I ‘d like to try that sort of thing again.
I used to do my Battletech sheets in notepad, using advanced ASCII characters to make borders and boxes. I don’t think these days I ‘d like to try that sort of thing again.
Well, a builder shows you all options at a glance and also takes into account the index.
And?
I'm sure people can turn off their call of battlefield games and spend 30 minutes writing a list.
I'm still amazed by the human brain.....
At three different game stores having tournaments in my area, OVER 60% of the hand made army lists had errors from people like you....and all of them thought they were super duper smart.
Well American education these days is pretty poor. So adding numbers might be too much to ask.
People running numbers and executing clear instructions is just not what they're good at.
When I want numbers ran or steps executed, I want a machine, not a person. The failure rate in a person executing a simple task with no complexity or missing knowledge is in the single-digit percents.
What I want from the person is to come up with an interesting army composition or way of fitting it all together.
People who pride themselves in not making mistakes or in "being smart enough to do it this way" tend to cause more mistakes. It's basically the "premature optimization" problem software suffers from - people being too smart by half do things to "make it better" tend to perform worse than people who don't.
A lot of small, easy calculations makes it *more* likely there will be a mistake.
If you have 100 tasks with a 1% chance of failure, you're more likely to fail (at least once) than if you had 1 task with a 50% chance of failure.
I don't have a problem with people using paper/pencil/calculator; I have a problem with the assumption that "you" (as in anyone) with paper/pencil/calculator are less likely to make a mistake than someone using BattleScribe.
And it's not just a case of "Can/can't do it without". Some people can do it without Battlescribe (or even a calculator) - but don't want to. My best friend in highschool was stupidly good at math. Taking 500s at a local college by junior year of highschool. Top 10 in the state by Freshman year for MathLeague. Could multiply large numbers in his head without issue. We were at a Math League event late in the year, looking at the scores. A handful of 3-digit numbers for each of a half-dozen schools. He pulled out a calculator to add them together. My point is, use the tools you want to use, but don't assume people who use easier tools do so because they're not good enough to not use them.
Not everyone I've ever heard say that has made mistakes in their list, but everyone I've encountered who has made mistakes in their list has said that.
Even if the mathS is simple, you show your working and I know the codex, I don't want to spend even five minutes checking that your scrawled list adds up to what you claim it does as a sop to vanity and ego.
It's not about showing how super-duper good at mathS you are, it's a basic decency to your opponent. Just use a FSM-damned spreadsheet or builder-app.
Your position is also super, super, super ableist. They reckon between 3 and 6% of us suffer dyscalculia and plenty of others just plain aren't good at mathS and aren't accountable to your standards in any event.
ValentineGames wrote: Except we do have a machine.
A calculator.
40k does NOT require complex maths.
It's as hard as 10+5=15. 15×10=150.
"Look mom me did math!"
Except it's not as easy as all that. The game has multiple rules sources, and updates to those rules sources. If you're making a list, you look up the value in your codex, then check CA 2018 to see if it's updated. Maybe it wasn't updated, but the cost of a weapon it's equipped with has been updated. If you miss that CA 2018 had an updated weapon cost, your adding invalid values, so your final answer will be wrong. I will always trust battlescribe over someone's pen and paper list, any day of the week.
ValentineGames wrote: Except we do have a machine.
A calculator.
40k does NOT require complex maths.
It's as hard as 10+5=15. 15×10=150.
"Look mom me did math!"
Except it's not as easy as all that. The game has multiple rules sources, and updates to those rules sources. If you're making a list, you look up the value in your codex, then check CA 2018 to see if it's updated. Maybe it wasn't updated, but the cost of a weapon it's equipped with has been updated. If you miss that CA 2018 had an updated weapon cost, your adding invalid values, so your final answer will be wrong. I will always trust battlescribe over someone's pen and paper list, any day of the week.
Well... you have the rule books, i trust players with a book over using battlescribe always. If you cant be bother to buy the new rules i cant be bother to play with you.
ValentineGames wrote: Except we do have a machine.
A calculator.
40k does NOT require complex maths.
It's as hard as 10+5=15. 15×10=150.
"Look mom me did math!"
Except it's not as easy as all that. The game has multiple rules sources, and updates to those rules sources. If you're making a list, you look up the value in your codex, then check CA 2018 to see if it's updated. Maybe it wasn't updated, but the cost of a weapon it's equipped with has been updated. If you miss that CA 2018 had an updated weapon cost, your adding invalid values, so your final answer will be wrong. I will always trust battlescribe over someone's pen and paper list, any day of the week.
Well... you have the rule books, i trust players with a book over using battlescribe always. If you cant be bother to buy the new rules i cant be bother to play with you.
It's not that I don't have the rules. I own all the rulebooks. It's still a massive pain in the ass that's more error-prone to actually write out a list with pencil and paper, instead of consulting 5+ separate sources for rules while making it. Realistically, I'd need the Astra Militarum, Imperial Knights, March White Dwarf, Chapter Approved, and the most recent FAQ and Designer's Commentary to reliably have all the rules. Like I said, I do own those (and take them to tournaments in case an opponent has a question) but it's not exactly easy to make a legal list in this game without an aide like Battlescribe. Players in your group must be amazingly intelligent and detail oriented, to not accidentally make a single mistake when building lists compared to Battlescribe, which has built-in validation of lists against known rules, and is constantly updated by players. Good for them. I still would ask to sit down and double-check someone's handwritten list by putting it into battlescribe before I play them in a tournament setting, because I truly do not trust people to not accidentally make a mistake.
ValentineGames wrote: Except we do have a machine. A calculator. 40k does NOT require complex maths. It's as hard as 10+5=15. 15×10=150. "Look mom me did math!"
Except it's not as easy as all that. The game has multiple rules sources, and updates to those rules sources. If you're making a list, you look up the value in your codex, then check CA 2018 to see if it's updated. Maybe it wasn't updated, but the cost of a weapon it's equipped with has been updated. If you miss that CA 2018 had an updated weapon cost, your adding invalid values, so your final answer will be wrong. I will always trust battlescribe over someone's pen and paper list, any day of the week.
Well... you have the rule books, i trust players with a book over using battlescribe always. If you cant be bother to buy the new rules i cant be bother to play with you.
It's not that I don't have the rules. I own all the rulebooks. It's still a massive pain in the ass that's more error-prone to actually write out a list with pencil and paper, instead of consulting 5+ separate sources for rules while making it. Realistically, I'd need the Astra Militarum, Imperial Knights, March White Dwarf, Chapter Approved, and the most recent FAQ and Designer's Commentary to reliably have all the rules. Like I said, I do own those (and take them to tournaments in case an opponent has a question) but it's not exactly easy to make a legal list in this game without an aide like Battlescribe. Players in your group must be amazingly intelligent and detail oriented, to not accidentally make a single mistake when building lists compared to Battlescribe, which has built-in validation of lists against known rules, and is constantly updated by players. Good for them. I still would ask to sit down and double-check someone's handwritten list by putting it into battlescribe before I play them in a tournament setting, because I truly do not trust people to not accidentally make a mistake.
No its not lol, literally take 2min........ to update a spreadsheet, i have mine on my phone. Its not hard dude.... FYI Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made.
I have all my armies in 1 spreadsheet in different tabs, its insanely easy to look up the points.
If its a tournament, i dont hand write, i print it out. And if you are so scared im cheating, then ask to read my points in my rule book. If yo are doing tournaments you will have a loose understand of other armies points, if not, then why are you even trying to be competitive or care?
Also, you dont have to be smart to add math up to 2000, especially with a calculator.
Here let me give you an example in my normal DE battalion
How hard was that? literally took me 3min to type that out and do the math. If you cant do basic math then you have the problem. IDK why you have such a problem the points are easy to save on your phone in a list and you dont need to be intelligent to do grade school math.
Automatically Appended Next Post: FYI, I play Aedari soup, i need:
CWE book + faqs Quins book + faqs DE book + faqs Index + faqs CA + faqs Big faq I even need to add FW book + faq sometimes
I have a back pack i bring to tournaments, and never once did i need to look up points after my list was made, b.c its simple math, and it is easy to double check before the game starts or before you print.
No its not lol, literally take 2min........ to update a spreadsheet, i have mine on my phone. Its not hard dude.... FYI Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made.
Of course Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made. I still don't see why you wouldn't use it, and would instead spend the time creating your own version of it. If it's better than Battlescribe, put it on Github and make it open source or something.
I'm not overly worried about people cheating, I'm more worried about people making honest mistakes because the rules are spread all over the place in this game. Good for you that you know the points values of things in your army. I know most of the ones for my Guard and Knights armies as well. I could probably make a list with it without having to reference a codex. I'd still use Battlescribe to validate it, because I want to be able to show my opponent that it was checked by SOME kind of third party for validation.
No its not lol, literally take 2min........ to update a spreadsheet, i have mine on my phone. Its not hard dude.... FYI Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made.
Of course Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made. I still don't see why you wouldn't use it, and would instead spend the time creating your own version of it. If it's better than Battlescribe, put it on Github and make it open source or something.
I'm not overly worried about people cheating, I'm more worried about people making honest mistakes because the rules are spread all over the place in this game. Good for you that you know the points values of things in your army. I know most of the ones for my Guard and Knights armies as well. I could probably make a list with it without having to reference a codex. I'd still use Battlescribe to validate it, because I want to be able to show my opponent that it was checked by SOME kind of third party for validation.
B.c the time it takes to make 1 list, i can make my own on my phone, now i dont have to worry about someones else work. It literally took me 10min to make my spreadsheet that i can now customize builds faster than you can on battlescribe.
I still will use battlescribe time to time, but you insisting that my spreadhsheet is prone to be wrong and not trustworthy bc i did simple math is just stupid.
If it literally took you 10 minutes to extract every option and point value for the armies you use, out of a dozen rulebook, supplements, and errata, then yo you are a savant.
If you did that in 10 minutes with even a 95% accuracy, you're probably top-tenth-percentile (99.9%) at transcription.
Congratulations? You are freakishly good at a low skilled mechanical task?
You are betting the time and focus you put into it yielded a higher quality result than a fairly sizeable community that spends ridiculous amounts of time reviewing it's accuracy. Outside of being... seriously abnormal, or spending absurd amounts of time double checking, that sounds like a bad bet.
There is no part of Windows or Chrome that can't be written by someone in my profession. There is no way in hell I'm giving those up and writing my own.
Bharring wrote: If it literally took you 10 minutes to extract every option and point value for the armies you use, out of a dozen rulebook, supplements, and errata, then yo you are a savant.
If you did that in 10 minutes with even a 95% accuracy, you're probably top-tenth-percentile (99.9%) at transcription.
Congratulations? You are freakishly good at a low skilled mechanical task?
You are betting the time and focus you put into it yielded a higher quality result than a fairly sizeable community that spends ridiculous amounts of time reviewing it's accuracy. Outside of being... seriously abnormal, or spending absurd amounts of time double checking, that sounds like a bad bet.
There is no part of Windows or Chrome that can't be written by someone in my profession. There is no way in hell I'm giving those up and writing my own.
Its a lot of Copy paste
Kabal | 6pts
Blaster | 17pts
Shredder | 8pts
Splinter c | 10pts
Dark L | 20pts
I copy/past it and then made it
Trueborn | 11pts
Blaster | 17pts
Shredder | 8pts
Splinter c | 10pts
Dark L | 20pts
Copy again
Scourge | 12pts
Blaster | 17pts
Shredder | 8pts
Splinter c | 10pts
Dark L | 20pts
Then with Excel or google docs, if you type the same thing... guess what! it remembers and you can let it auto complete it for you, I type B and blaster comes up, i type D and Dark lance comes up, i type Sp and Splinter cannon comes up, makes typing a lot faster.
Went in and did the points for the units, its not that hard guys, many units dont even have options like Mandrakes, Court, Beasts, etc.. It really doesnt take long. If you dont understand your army and fumbling around with what unit is allow to take what, then sure might take longer. Im double deficit dyslexia, if i can make a spreadsheet for my army in 10min i think you can too. I think you are just trying to make it sound harder than what it is so you can be lazy.
What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Hmmm,
I'm not reading anywhere where someone objected to you using a spreadsheet. I did read several examples of why people don't use it and why they don't, only to read you say how easy it is and how fast you can do it.....so what are you digging at?
An army builder app requires less initial build time and less maintenance then a spreadsheet.......plus the biggest factor is a very simple one that destroys your argument about how easy it is......not every has experience with spreadsheets and may not even have access to one that is any good.
Pushing as hard as you are about spreadsheets being the easiest and best just brings up an image of monkey's humping a doorknob rather than an "Ahhhh" moment.
ValentineGames wrote: Except we do have a machine.
A calculator.
40k does NOT require complex maths.
It's as hard as 10+5=15. 15×10=150.
"Look mom me did math!"
How many points are 1 Kustom Boosta Blasta, 1 Shokkjump Dragsta, 1 Megatrakk Scrapjet and one Warboss with a PK?
How many points is a unit of Myphitic Blighthaulers?
How long did it take you to figure that out?
No its not lol, literally take 2min........ to update a spreadsheet, i have mine on my phone. Its not hard dude.... FYI Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made.
Of course Battlescribe is just a spreadsheet that someone made. I still don't see why you wouldn't use it, and would instead spend the time creating your own version of it. If it's better than Battlescribe, put it on Github and make it open source or something.
I'm not overly worried about people cheating, I'm more worried about people making honest mistakes because the rules are spread all over the place in this game. Good for you that you know the points values of things in your army. I know most of the ones for my Guard and Knights armies as well. I could probably make a list with it without having to reference a codex. I'd still use Battlescribe to validate it, because I want to be able to show my opponent that it was checked by SOME kind of third party for validation.
The big advantage of BattleScribe is that its data is reviewed by multiple people before initial releases and reviewed by a crowd after releases and thus always superior to anything done by a single person. Anyone who thinks he is never doing any mistakes is, as a matter of fact, wrong.
Most mistakes in BattleScribe's data are not related to point costs.
Ok, the best Army Builder you have used in the last couple of years, (include any that have been axed by GW):
For Me:
#1. The 40k Army List Builder - The best builder I have ever seen! It had all of the data and none of the hideous look of Battlescribe, (Too bad GW canned it!)
#2. HQ - Solid ease of use with some issues here and there
#3. Battlescribe - solid on the data, but clunky and ugly as hell!
Opinions?
The only one I use is Battlescribe.
Although I did have an issue with it's rules accuracy the last time I played as Imperial Guard, the Tank Commander had some rules that aren't in the codex or index. Don't know what happened but I think it was fixed shortly after that.
So whilst I build my army in Battlescribe, and it's a god send for printing out a list as you get all the stats/rules, I always check against the codices just in case.
I use battlescribe to get points right and army validity.
Rules I read in books, not because I don't trust BS, but because that's where I'm used to reading them and BS more often than not is a shortened version of them. Also anyone playing likely know 99% of the rules by heart anyway.
If it's easy to do on spreadsheet you can be sure it's easy to get right in BS. Plus others can easily check my army without running through multiple tabs of a homebrew Excel workbook.
Why anyone would want to double up on the work done to maintain BS data, and add risk of errors, is beyond me.
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Hmmm,
I'm not reading anywhere where someone objected to you using a spreadsheet. I did read several examples of why people don't use it and why they don't, only to read you say how easy it is and how fast you can do it.....so what are you digging at?
An army builder app requires less initial build time and less maintenance then a spreadsheet.......plus the biggest factor is a very simple one that destroys your argument about how easy it is......not every has experience with spreadsheets and may not even have access to one that is any good.
Pushing as hard as you are about spreadsheets being the easiest and best just brings up an image of monkey's humping a doorknob rather than an "Ahhhh" moment.
Im not pushing, go read all the comments, i made a small comment about them, then he said its so hard you need to be a savant or super intelligent to not make a mistake and you cant trust people that dont use a program....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
torblind wrote: I use battlescribe to get points right and army validity.
Rules I read in books, not because I don't trust BS, but because that's where I'm used to reading them and BS more often than not is a shortened version of them. Also anyone playing likely know 99% of the rules by heart anyway.
If it's easy to do on spreadsheet you can be sure it's easy to get right in BS. Plus others can easily check my army without running through multiple tabs of a homebrew Excel workbook.
Why anyone would want to double up on the work done to maintain BS data, and add risk of errors, is beyond me.
You are not risking errors, its just numbers, this is a stupid argument, REMOVED - BrookM
The people who are most convinced by their own skills are usually the ones most likely to do mistakes. I would double-check any list you write when playing against you, since your type is the kind that usually has the most problems in their list.
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Hmmm,
I'm not reading anywhere where someone objected to you using a spreadsheet. I did read several examples of why people don't use it and why they don't, only to read you say how easy it is and how fast you can do it.....so what are you digging at?
An army builder app requires less initial build time and less maintenance then a spreadsheet.......plus the biggest factor is a very simple one that destroys your argument about how easy it is......not every has experience with spreadsheets and may not even have access to one that is any good.
Pushing as hard as you are about spreadsheets being the easiest and best just brings up an image of monkey's humping a doorknob rather than an "Ahhhh" moment.
Im not pushing, go read all the comments, i made a small comment about them, then he said its so hard you need to be a savant or super intelligent to not make a mistake and you cant trust people that dont use a program....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
torblind wrote: I use battlescribe to get points right and army validity.
Rules I read in books, not because I don't trust BS, but because that's where I'm used to reading them and BS more often than not is a shortened version of them. Also anyone playing likely know 99% of the rules by heart anyway.
If it's easy to do on spreadsheet you can be sure it's easy to get right in BS. Plus others can easily check my army without running through multiple tabs of a homebrew Excel workbook.
Why anyone would want to double up on the work done to maintain BS data, and add risk of errors, is beyond me.
You are not risking errors, its just numbers, this is a stupid argument, REMOVED - BrookM
I believe you are misinformed.
Just copying numbers, for the average human, has a single-digit error rate. That doesn't mean that, for a hundred numbers, there is a N% chance of one being wrong; it means, when just copying numbers, each number has an N% chance of being wrong.
Now, even if we assume it's 1%, that might not sound so bad - 99% chance each number is right. But a 1% failure rate over 100 numbers is actually only a 36% chance to not make a mistake.
It is common hubris to believe oneself infallible at simple tasks. Or that anyone who could make a mistake on simple tasks is stupid or careless. But that's only because of sharpening; we recognize and remember other peoples mistakes much more readily than our own.
Another common hubris is how long it actually would take us to do something we consider simple. Anyone who has had to work on A team should notice this quickly.
I'm sure there are a hundred pages in the DE book. And CA, and CWE, etc etc - at least 600 pages across all the relevant sources for your armies. To extract all that information (not just numbers; there are special rules you need to consult too) in 10 minutes means averaging one second a page - flipping, reading, absorbing, extracting numbers, structuring the spreadsheet, and then entering the numbers. That sounds really fast, to me.
The average human makes mistakes regularly. We compensate by checking our work or having it reviewed all the time. Insisting anyone who ever makes a mistake on mundane tasks has a learning disability is simpleminded.
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Hmmm,
I'm not reading anywhere where someone objected to you using a spreadsheet. I did read several examples of why people don't use it and why they don't, only to read you say how easy it is and how fast you can do it.....so what are you digging at?
An army builder app requires less initial build time and less maintenance then a spreadsheet.......plus the biggest factor is a very simple one that destroys your argument about how easy it is......not every has experience with spreadsheets and may not even have access to one that is any good.
Pushing as hard as you are about spreadsheets being the easiest and best just brings up an image of monkey's humping a doorknob rather than an "Ahhhh" moment.
Im not pushing, go read all the comments, i made a small comment about them, then he said its so hard you need to be a savant or super intelligent to not make a mistake and you cant trust people that dont use a program....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
torblind wrote: I use battlescribe to get points right and army validity.
Rules I read in books, not because I don't trust BS, but because that's where I'm used to reading them and BS more often than not is a shortened version of them. Also anyone playing likely know 99% of the rules by heart anyway.
If it's easy to do on spreadsheet you can be sure it's easy to get right in BS. Plus others can easily check my army without running through multiple tabs of a homebrew Excel workbook.
Why anyone would want to double up on the work done to maintain BS data, and add risk of errors, is beyond me.
You are not risking errors, its just numbers, this is a stupid argument, if anyone thinks its to hard to copy a number they need to go gte check out for a learning disability.
I believe you are misinformed.
Just copying numbers, for the average human, has a single-digit error rate. That doesn't mean that, for a hundred numbers, there is a N% chance of one being wrong; it means, when just copying numbers, each number has an N% chance of being wrong.
Now, even if we assume it's 1%, that might not sound so bad - 99% chance each number is right. But a 1% failure rate over 100 numbers is actually only a 36% chance to not make a mistake.
It is common hubris to believe oneself infallible at simple tasks. Or that anyone who could make a mistake on simple tasks is stupid or careless. But that's only because of sharpening; we recognize and remember other peoples mistakes much more readily than our own.
Another common hubris is how long it actually would take us to do something we consider simple. Anyone who has had to work on A team should notice this quickly.
I'm sure there are a hundred pages in the DE book. And CA, and CWE, etc etc - at least 600 pages across all the relevant sources for your armies. To extract all that information (not just numbers; there are special rules you need to consult too) in 10 minutes means averaging one second a page - flipping, reading, absorbing, extracting numbers, structuring the spreadsheet, and then entering the numbers. That sounds really fast, to me.
The average human makes mistakes regularly. We compensate by checking our work or having it reviewed all the time. Insisting anyone who ever makes a mistake on mundane tasks has a learning disability is simpleminded.
You are not extracting all the pages, just the units name and gear with points, why would i copy story or rules? that is why i have a codex for, if i need to look up a rule i grab my book. We are talking about list building not rules.
Amishprn86 wrote: For for those that just updated BS, it isnt working. but my spreadsheet is, have a nice day not knowing how to build you army with Pen and paper.
Note: yes it was fix within a few hours, but it shows one of my points, i can trust my information.
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Just use Battlescribe it is very easy.
The thing is, i never once said to not use it, nor said you shouldnt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: I hope Amishprn86 is consitant with his name and doesn't use the internet or computers!
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Just use Battlescribe it is very easy.
The thing is, i never once said to not use it, nor said you shouldnt.
You sort of did. You said to just use pen and paper.
Look, I don't have a problem with you using pen and paper if you enjoy. I get that the physicality of it could be enjoyable. But Battlescribe is great too.
Of course everyone should use their preferred technique, if that's your position too then all is chill.
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Just use Battlescribe it is very easy.
The thing is, i never once said to not use it, nor said you shouldnt.
You sort of did. You said to just use pen and paper.
Look, I don't have a problem with you using pen and paper if you enjoy. I get that the physicality of it could be enjoyable. But Battlescribe is great too.
Of course everyone should use their preferred technique, if that's your position too then all is chill.
But i dont use pen and paper, all i said was an option, that option is use your own sheet of points, and everyone jump on me like its impossible to do and will make tones of mistakes and BS is the best and is never wrong, and blah blah blah.
use w/e the fu you want, but pretending a quick points reference is a terrible idea b.c you have to do basic math is silly.
Horst wrote: What happens if there's a Chapter Approved or Errata, and you miss a change? What happens if your spreadsheet is out of date and you don't realize it?
Battlescribe is crowdsourcing quality control. Yes, there are occasionally errors... that are quickly fixed by that crowd. If you have an error in your spreadsheet, then you may never catch it.
I still do not see why you would use your own system over a pre-built one. It's available as a free app for your phone... its not like it costs money. You can put together a list in 10 minutes easily with it. I'm just very confused why you would reinvent the wheel and risk invalid data when you don't have to.
I buy the new updated books and take 1-2min to fix them..... I have mind updated and fix before BS is normally.
And there isnt errors b.c i know my points and i double check time to time, and its never invalid. I dont understand why you think it is invald information...
Why? B.c it takes no time at all, i am in control of it.
The real question is, why are you so against me doing it? Why are you so defensive that i dont need BS and can make lists in minutes with spreadsheet? The spreadsheet doesnt cot me money either. and PS, BS does have errors, what if you didnt notice their errors?
Hmmm,
I'm not reading anywhere where someone objected to you using a spreadsheet. I did read several examples of why people don't use it and why they don't, only to read you say how easy it is and how fast you can do it.....so what are you digging at?
An army builder app requires less initial build time and less maintenance then a spreadsheet.......plus the biggest factor is a very simple one that destroys your argument about how easy it is......not every has experience with spreadsheets and may not even have access to one that is any good.
Pushing as hard as you are about spreadsheets being the easiest and best just brings up an image of monkey's humping a doorknob rather than an "Ahhhh" moment.
Im not pushing, go read all the comments, i made a small comment about them, then he said its so hard you need to be a savant or super intelligent to not make a mistake and you cant trust people that dont use a program....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
torblind wrote: I use battlescribe to get points right and army validity.
Rules I read in books, not because I don't trust BS, but because that's where I'm used to reading them and BS more often than not is a shortened version of them. Also anyone playing likely know 99% of the rules by heart anyway.
If it's easy to do on spreadsheet you can be sure it's easy to get right in BS. Plus others can easily check my army without running through multiple tabs of a homebrew Excel workbook.
Why anyone would want to double up on the work done to maintain BS data, and add risk of errors, is beyond me.
You are not risking errors, its just numbers, this is a stupid argument, if anyone thinks its to hard to copy a number they need to go gte check out for a learning disability.
I believe you are misinformed.
Just copying numbers, for the average human, has a single-digit error rate. That doesn't mean that, for a hundred numbers, there is a N% chance of one being wrong; it means, when just copying numbers, each number has an N% chance of being wrong.
Now, even if we assume it's 1%, that might not sound so bad - 99% chance each number is right. But a 1% failure rate over 100 numbers is actually only a 36% chance to not make a mistake.
It is common hubris to believe oneself infallible at simple tasks. Or that anyone who could make a mistake on simple tasks is stupid or careless. But that's only because of sharpening; we recognize and remember other peoples mistakes much more readily than our own.
Another common hubris is how long it actually would take us to do something we consider simple. Anyone who has had to work on A team should notice this quickly.
I'm sure there are a hundred pages in the DE book. And CA, and CWE, etc etc - at least 600 pages across all the relevant sources for your armies. To extract all that information (not just numbers; there are special rules you need to consult too) in 10 minutes means averaging one second a page - flipping, reading, absorbing, extracting numbers, structuring the spreadsheet, and then entering the numbers. That sounds really fast, to me.
The average human makes mistakes regularly. We compensate by checking our work or having it reviewed all the time. Insisting anyone who ever makes a mistake on mundane tasks has a learning disability is simpleminded.
You are not extracting all the pages, just the units name and gear with points, why would i copy story or rules? that is why i have a codex for, if i need to look up a rule i grab my book. We are talking about list building not rules.
Of course not; but you average across all the pages. Sight unseen, you'd need to flip through to know which pages have the rules and which don't. The pages without rules will certainly take less than a second per page, even sight unseen, if you're laser-focused on extracting the rules. But the pages with rules/points take a lot longer.
If you're not extracting any of the rules, then the solution is incomplete; you need to know which slots the units belong to, and which rules change the slots, and any other rules that impact what units can go in what armies. Unit names, gear, points, and options are only part of what needs to be used to construct an army. You needn't care about the rules about how to use them on the table itself, but you need to find all the rules that apply to listbuilding; you can't do that without going through all the rules to know which ones impact list building and which ones do not.
The extremely lowballed estimates are partly a product of not realizing all the overhead. It may have been 10 minutes of direct copying, but knowing which values to copy, and where to find them in the books, and what listbuilding rules need to be present - all that combined is going to exceed 10 minutes.
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Just use Battlescribe it is very easy.
The thing is, i never once said to not use it, nor said you shouldnt.
I think you've said we shouldn't use BattleScribe about as much as I've said we should. It's important to point out that - as far as I've read this thread - neither of us is saying the other should *not be allowed* to do it their way. We just disagree on the relative merits of extracting your own list building setup from the books vs using BattleScribe.
Sure, at a desk or something. What if I'm on the bus to work and I couldn't get a seat (a regular occurrence) but I have list ideas bouncing in my head I want to start figuring out.
Just use Battlescribe it is very easy.
The thing is, i never once said to not use it, nor said you shouldnt.
You sort of did. You said to just use pen and paper.
Look, I don't have a problem with you using pen and paper if you enjoy. I get that the physicality of it could be enjoyable. But Battlescribe is great too.
Of course everyone should use their preferred technique, if that's your position too then all is chill.
But i dont use pen and paper, all i said was an option, that option is use your own sheet of points, and everyone jump on me like its impossible to do and will make tones of mistakes and BS is the best and is never wrong, and blah blah blah.
use w/e the fu you want, but pretending a quick points reference is a terrible idea b.c you have to do basic math is silly.
We may be talking past eachother.
In my profession (business software development), anyone half decent can write a method to sort data. Easily and quickly.
No competent (business software) developer writes a sort method to sort their data. They just reference some already-built `sort` method. It's not because it's hard. It's not because they can't do it. It's because it's faster, safer, and more reliable to use what someone else already wrote. There are occasional devs who believe that it's just a quick task that only requires the most basic math, and so write their own. These people never work out - they get practically nothing done, take forever to do it, and whatever they do write is full of bugs. It's not that these people are "less smart" or that they're less capable of writing a `sort` than the competent developers - many are often smarter or more capable even. It's that doing it themselves when other people have already done it is inefficient. It's that each piece might be just a minute or two, and it might sound like it's a 10 minute thing all together, but the stuff really adds up to days - you just don't see it. It's that mistakes happen, so it's better to use existing functionality than writing your own. When talking about excellence, expedience, and reliability, the community answer is almost always superior to rolling it yourself.
All this is not to say don't use pen & paper (or spreadsheets, or whatever). It's to say don't do it for reasons of excellence, expedience, or reliability. One person I play does it by hand because they enjoy doing the math - that person should certainly continue to do it by hand.
One other note - if you do have a problem with the quality, timeliness, or reliability of BattleScribe, then just extract the data yourself. You can either create your own documents for BattleScribe to use, or fork the existing repos. You can fix any mistake they've made, or just write your own document. All the benefits of either system, and still less effort.
Anyone can start their own version of it - click the 'fork' button to start your own copy, then make your changes. You can then fix whatever is wrong, then use it. You can even then offer to merge it back to the public repo, so everyone gets it.
@amish - if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, it's really cool how it all works. I think you'd enjoy giving it a try. This is how code ("Open Source" or otherwise) gets managed, and how people collaborate. Even if you have no interest in slinging code ever, being familiar with this part of it is very enlightening.
Anyone can start their own version of it - click the 'fork' button to start your own copy, then make your changes. You can then fix whatever is wrong, then use it. You can even then offer to merge it back to the public repo, so everyone gets it.
@amish - if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, it's really cool how it all works. I think you'd enjoy giving it a try. This is how code ("Open Source" or otherwise) gets managed, and how people collaborate. Even if you have no interest in slinging code ever, being familiar with this part of it is very enlightening.
My wife is a programmer (tho she is looking into cyber security b.c how many jobs there is), i know a little about code, i cant do it, i tried (I mentally cant do it).
however, it only has powerlevels and no profiles / special rules with it so it's very basic. But they said they'll expand it.
you want, but pretending a quick points reference is a terrible idea b.c you have to do basic math is silly.
